Sklyarov Tells U.S. Court, 'I'm no hacker' 556
DaytonCIM writes "Dmitry Sklyarov, the Russian programmer at the centre of the first Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) prosecution, yesterday delivered his long-awaited testimony in the trial of his former employer, ElcomSoft." There are also stories at The Register and on CNET.
Throw it out? (Score:5, Insightful)
doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
Re:doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Such clothing is illegal in Saudi Arabia.
Who knows, they might jail a few tourists for crimes never commited on their soil... hmm?
Where does it end?
Re:doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
Not he, they. ElcomSoft is on trial, not Dmitry. Otherwise, you're right.
Re:doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Under the DMCA just creating the tool is illegal. It doesn't matter if everyone or no one uses it.
Isn't the DMCA a USA law ??? Sklyarov did all his programming in Russia ..
Is copyright protection realy worth living in a world where a foreign national can sue a individual/company in another country for breaking laws in his country ? Like THIS ? [europemedia.net]
Re:doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Throw it out? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Throw it out? (Score:4, Funny)
- We want elcomsoft to not release software that breaks our unbreakable security software.
Funny.
You'd think Adobe would either just step up and admit they ain't got shit, or fix their software. Mostly realize you can't make bits uncopyable...
Tom
Re:Throw it out? (Score:5, Informative)
- We want elcomsoft to not release software that breaks our unbreakable security software.
No. First, Adobe says right there on the page that no technology can be 100% secure. They say that, when used properly, their software protects copyrighted works. That's all they claim.
They say that they encourage users, including "white hats," to give them feedback on their software and the security thereof.
They say that Elcomsoft broke US law by distributing their software. They say that the US Department of Justice took it upon themselves to make the arrest and to prosecute the case.
Whether or not Adobe's software is perfect isn't even remotely relevant to the issue.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Effective" doesn't mean "really good." It just means that the mechanism does, on its face, restrict access to the work. It's not a question of how easy or hard it is to get around it. It's a question of whether it presents an obstacle at all.
This analogy isn't perfect, but I think it'll serve. Imagine that a policeman comes to your house. You have the severed head of your last victim in your freezer, and you decide (for whatever reason) to leave your freezer door open. The policeman walks in, sees the severed head in plain sight, and arrests you on the spot.
On the other hand, what if you had closed the freezer door? If the policeman had opened your freezer, seen the severed head, and then arrested you, your lawyer would immediately start drafting a motion to suppress evidence. If a policeman looks around and sees a severed head in plain sight, that's not a search and requires no warrant. If, on the other hand, he opens your freezer and finds the head, that's a search, and it requires a warrant in order to be legal.
The question of whether your freezer is a good place to hide things or not never comes into it. The point is that you had the severed head behind closed doors. That's all it takes.
This is the same thing. The important fact is that the content of the work is hidden behind an access control mechanism such that you have to circumvent it in order to get to the content. Even if the process of circumvention is trivial-- like opening a freezer door-- it's still circumvention, and (mostly) prohibited.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Informative)
A file that has been run through ROT-13 is not readable. It has to be run through ROT-13 again to be readable. So ROT-13 is an effective access control mechanism. You can't access the content until you get around the control mechanism. The fact that the access control mechanism is trivial doesn't matter at all.
The reason for looking at it this way should be obvious. A file that is well-protected today may be only trivially protected in 10 years, thanks to advances in technology. Does that mean that the file is "effectively" protected today, but not "effectively" protected in 2012? That's not cool, from a legal point of view. So the question is not how easy or hard is it to get past the protection mechanism. The question is whether there's one at all. It has to be that way in order to be fair.
Maybe my friend's mom lost her key to a Harry Potter book and can't read it anymore. Her credit is screwed up thanks to a vindictive bellhop in Omaha, so Adobe won't help her.
That's a reach. Why would Adobe care about your friend's mom's credit rating? All she has to do is call technical support; she doesn't have to buy anything new. Not that this invalidates your example, but I want to illustrate that it's harder to come up with a situation in which eBook gets in the way than you might think at first.
What if there is a backdoor password of "Adobe"; is this effective?
Yes. Because in order to access the data, you have to know the password. As long as the password isn't disclosed, this is an effective protection mechanism.
Please try to remember, the legal definition of "effective" is the most literal one: does the prevention mechanism have any effect at all? If the answer is yes, then it is an effective mechanism.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which brings us to an excellent point. It is pretty easy to learn to read ROT-13. And once you do learn it, it's virtually impossible to not do so any time you see it.
I have made zero effort to learn ROT-13, yet it took me about 2 seconds to recognize the phrase "All your base are belong to us" when I saw it posted in ROT-13. I even spotted that there was a typo in it, though I couldn't tell offhand what the typo changed it to.
I'm sure if I really worked at it I could become semi-fluent in reading ROT-13 within a day or so.
What are the DMCA implications of this? Of learning to decrypt something in your head? Because it *IS* possible to do DeCSS this way, though it would be quite an impressive feat.
-
Re:Throw it out? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, they just fundamentally don't get it:
The whole point of fair use and its ilk is that it does not require permission from the copyright holder. If I have to beg for my fair use rights, then they have been stolen from me. Forget free speech, this case is about the basic rights to own and use one's private property.
In one of Lessig's speeches, he lists the absurd restrictions on an eBook of a work in the public domain. Who do these people think they are?!
Re:Throw it out? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you know that copyright holders are not required to do anything at all in order to ensure that users of their works can exercise all-- or even any!-- of the possible fair uses of their works?
Did you know that, under the DMCA, it is not illegal to circumvent copy protection mechanisms for the purpose of making fair use of a work? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(B)]
Did you know that this case rests on the DMCA's prohibition of the importation or sale of devices whose sole purpose is to circumvent copy protection? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2)]
Did you know that most people who complain with zeal that the DMCA is a bad law have never actually read it, or indeed any part of Title 17?
Just some legal trivia for y'all to chew on.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you know that this case rests on the DMCA's prohibition of the importation or sale of devices whose sole purpose is to circumvent copy protection? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2)]
You really don't see any conflict at all between those two statements do you?
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Insightful)
At least that's how i think it's supposed to be. Either way, you have a point, and it shows how vague the DMCA is.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:5, Informative)
US Code Title 17, Chapter 12, 1201 [cornell.edu] says (emphasis mine):
(2)
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A)
is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
*********************
Check out this article [kuro5hin.org] for more.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Informative)
That's why it's spelled with one. Webster's says that the plural of "traffic" is "trafficked," and the participle and gerund forms are both "trafficking."
Re:Throw it out? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Informative)
1201(a)(1)(B) depends on (a)(1)(C) (Score:4, Informative)
17 U.S.C. 1201 (a)(1)(B) basically says that paragraph (A) doesn't apply to people who are attempting to make noninfringing use of a protected work. That hardly qualifies as a "narrow exception."
But section 1201 (a)(1)(C) [cornell.edu] states that only the Librarian of Congress can grant such exceptions.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is to say: If a developer creates a tool to enable a user to excercise his or her fair use rights, a copyright holder can have the state haul him into court and claim that the tool is actually an illegal circumvention device. The court is then forced to 'read the mind' of the developer to attempt to divine his motivations for creating the tool.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Interesting)
The court usually has to "read the mind" of the accused. Intent is often a very important factor in deciding whether an act is in violation of the law or nor, or in deciding how severe a violation is. So the fact that the DMCA depends on intent would not, in and of itself, make it a bad law.
But as it turns out, that's not what the DMCA says. The DMCA says that tools that are primarily designed for circumventing the access controls on protected works, that have limited commercially significant purposes other than circumvention, and that are marketed for the purpose of circumvention may not be produced, imported, or distributed in the US. The question of the intent of the maker of the tool is not relevant. What's relevant is what the actual practical use for the tool is, and how the tool is described by its maker.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Straw man. Adobe isn't merely failing to accomodate fair use. They are actively trying to block people from using their own resources to enable fair use. That is what people are rightfully complaining about.
Put these two together. You're saying you can have your rights as long as you're an expert computer scientist and cryptographer? Nice. What about the other 99% of US citizens? In a free market, shouldn't people be allowed to hire someone else with the necessary skills or purchase a tool that enables them to do what they want? Also in a free market, shouldn't I be allowed to satisfy that demand if I have the expertise?
Did you know that copyright holders can bundle extra restrictions into their "copy protection" systems that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual rights [cornell.edu] granted to copyright holders? eBooks you can't read aloud or print, DVD region coding, software that's tied to a single computer and can't be resold, and many more to come if this case is lost.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only problem I have with this is that the DMCA specifically outlaws the creation of keyblanks; disabling me from getting a copy of the key I purchased to that padlock in case I lose the original.
Sure, it says if I can make a key. [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(B)]
But in order to do so, I must know how to mine the ore, refine it, forge it into a keyblank, make a key-cutting machine, and finally, duplicate said key. And that is assuming you don't use one of those keys with a circuit inside them, in which case I need to mine the silica to make the chip too. (along with all the fabbing goodness). [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2)(A)]
And that is what is so wrong with this law. It may not be constitutionally wrong (I do not have enough knowledge to make that decision), but it is reserving rights (or exceptions thereof) to a very, very few people. (in the case of the padlock, possibly *none*).
That is not a law that serves the majority; that is not how a democracy is supposed to function. That is a law that was bought by corporations with moneys accepted by corrupt polititians wanting to make the quick buck at the american peoples expense...
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, not necessarily. Section 1201(c)(1) says, "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." So in other words, one could argue that the DMCA doesn't apply, in any way, shape or form, to fair or otherwise noninfringing uses.
Since the authors of the law went to the trouble of putting this clause in, it makes the most sense to conclude that they never intended for chapter 12 to in any way prohibit the fair uses of copyrighted works. So the circumvention of copy protection and the manufacture, importation, and sale of devices for the circumvention of copy protection are legal in the context of fair use.
The burden is on the government to show that a given device for circumvention has no significant potential for application for the purpose of fair use.
Given the facts of the case, it seems like the government should be able to show that very easily here. The eBook system doesn't appear to prevent fair uses; it doesn't stop you, or even hinder you, from quoting sections of a work for criticism or comment, or from making backup copies for personal use, or any of those things. So it should not be necessary to circumvent copy protection in order to make fair use of an eBook-protected work. (It should be noted that wanting to read a work on a device for which there is no eBook reader is not, as yet, covered under fair use. The DeCSS case may change that.) If that's the case, then there's no significant noninfringing potential use for the Elcomsoft software, and the importation of it into the US should be illegal.
So what chapter 12 really criminalizes is the circumvention of copy protection for the purpose of copyright infringement, and more importantly the sale or distribution of devices to facilitate same. Which ought to be against the law, I think.
Doesn't sound like a bad law to me at all. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable law, badly misinterpreted.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:5, Funny)
Right, best be getting to it, then.
Good thing the law protects me from buying the end result from someone else instead of going through the process myself -- without doubt, a law that promotes that sort of self-sufficient, can-do spirit is just the sort of thing that made this country great.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently, according to one of the quoted portions of the DMCA above, that would constitute manufacturing a circumvention device, and thus would be illegal. You could, theoretically, be hauled off to court for it if someone found out about it and the law were vigorously enforced.
(2)
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A)
is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
is that so? (Score:3, Insightful)
No kidding, but completely orhogonal to the point. I have plenty of copyrighted works still in my head, unpublished, of course I don't have to provide anyone the means of accessing it. However, If I publish it, I sure as hell shouldn't be able to tell people who legally purchased it how they can view it.
Copyright is another issue entirely, even though that's supposedly what the DMCA is supposed to protect.
Did you know that, under the DMCA, it is not illegal to circumvent copy protection mechanisms for the purpose of making fair use of a work? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(B)]
Yes, what's your point?
Did you know that this case rests on the DMCA's prohibition of the importation or sale of devices whose sole purpose is to circumvent copy protection? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2)]
Exactly, this is entirely contradictary to the previous statement, unless exceptions are allowed for devices that circumvent copy controls for the purpose of making fair use of a copyrighted work, eg. the software in question. This is a large part of what makes the DMCA such a bad law. Another reason is that it puts the burden of proof on the accused.
Did you know that most people who complain with zeal that the DMCA is a bad law have never actually read it, or indeed any part of Title 17?
Is that so? Does everyone here also know that you speak from your asshole, it's just as valid a statement. I myself have read most of the DMCA, further, the basics of the DMCA are easily compressed into a few sentences. So, really, it matters little if everyone has read the whole damn thing, pages upon pages of legalese.
Just some legal trivia for y'all to chew on
Trivia? Taste more like shit...
Re:is that so? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course you can. It's a free country. You can tell people that they are only allowed to view your works while wearing a fez. If you make them sign a piece of paper stipulating such, that becomes a contract, and you're both bound to it. If somebody reads your work while wearing a bowler instead-- or, god forbid, no hat at all-- you can sue for breach of contract.
On the other side of the table, a potential buyer is free to reject your terms. In other words, if you don't like the deal, don't accept it.
Another reason is that it puts the burden of proof on the accused.
In what way? I'm not sure I know what you mean.
(I'll just ignore your personal remarks. If you don't want to talk with me, that's fine; you don't have to get all huffy.)
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you know it makes for bad law to afford Copyright holders patent like protection on devices that display their content?
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because he didn't circumvent any copy protection mechanisms himself. Instead, he created-- as the copyright holder, he is the legal author-- a tool to circumvent copy protection, and then distributed his tool into the United States. That's illegal.
I don't see anything in there mentioning fair use, do you?
It's hidden under the word "noninfringing." You have the broad class of noninfringing uses; this class includes things like reproduction by libraries and archives. Within noninfringing use, you have fair use, which is a very specific kind of noninfringement.
All I see mentioned is that you can circumvent the protection if you are 'adversely affected' by it.
Read more carefully. It says that the prohibition doesn't apply to people who are "adversely affected... in their ability to make noninfringing uses." In other words, if the copy protection mechanism prevents you from making a noninfringing use, you are not prohibited from circumventing it in order to make that noninfringing use.
if I do any of them I am a criminal and I am placed in the same group as rapists, drug dealers, and murders.
Hardly. For a first offense, the absolute statutory maximum penalty is 5 years in prison. That's a serious sentence, but a far cry from "rapists, drug dealers, and murderers." Don't exaggerate, okay?
Re:Throw it out? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is not that Elcomsoft and Sklyarov developed anti DMCA software, because they did; The point that should concern people (especially those from outside the US) is that they are being tried in the US, under US law for legal actions they committed in another country. This just shows the hypocrisy of the US government. They want others to follow their rules, but they never stop to consider others' rules.
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Insightful)
While it is true that the software was developed in another country, it was marketed and sol din the US. Thus, it falls under US law. If the software hadn't been marketed to Americans, and sold to Americans, through a US website, using US dollars, I would wholeheartedly agree that US law shouldn't apply in any way shape or form. But just because it was developed by a company in another country has no effect on the matter if the software is sold within the US to US citizens. Anything sold to US citizens in the US, falls under US laws.
so Adobe stuffed up twice! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC, he was arrested in the US for something he either just did or was about to do in the US. Something about a demonstration of the flaws in Adobe's encryption system, I believe.
At any rate, the real silliness is in the law itself. You can reverse engineer something, but you can't ever tell anybody how you did it. Which means everybody has to reinvent the wheel for themselves. If that doesn't fly in the face of the original concept of copyrights to begin with (to encourage the dissemination of information), I don't know what does.
Copyright law is supposed to be "promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The DMCA is doing the exact opposite. Where can we find a convenient case to take up to the USSC?
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Interesting)
We aren't demanding that they change their format; we demanding the right to write programs that read their format, if we can figure it out. They can release anything they want, so long as we can also.
Re:Not just a work in the public domain (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't believe it. They use overbroad copyright statements - putting Copyright 1999 on a copy of 1912 book where they only thing they added was the introduction - but minor changes in the US don't matter - from the copyright office's FAQ [copyright.gov]:
Misinformed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Throw it out? (Score:4, Informative)
Reference this: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/07/23/23382
SiO2
Re:Throw it out? (Score:3, Informative)
In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:5, Insightful)
In Soviet Russia... explained, for morons like me (Score:4, Informative)
"In Soviet Russia, bad jokes laugh at YOU!"
This is the style of joke frequently told by Yakov Smirnoff - a Russian immigrant comedian that was popular for 20 minutes in the 80's. It was most recently seen (sort of) on an episode of King of the Hill, where that very same joke formula was used gratuitously. Dale maced him!
(P.S. Why can't the
(P.P.S. Instant +1 moderation for mentioning how bad the editors are?)
Irony (Score:3, Interesting)
aiding and abbeting known fellons? (Score:3)
So, has Adobe conspired to help the rest of the Elmsoft company escape justice? Me oh my, Adobe has given money and comfort to the folks they claimed broke the law. Better call the FBI, raid their headquarters and purge that filthy circumvention software they now own. We can't let just anyone read Ebooks.
Actually, we'de all be better off if no one ever reads ebooks.
Re:Irony (Score:3, Interesting)
Adobe got out because the PR started to stink. They got the +4 to hit for the backstab, and got out.... I won't buy the "gov't forced it, not us" line. Thank god they were greedy enough to go after something stupid enough that it may damage the DCMA.
Of course he's no cracker, either... (Score:3, Interesting)
And speaking of the occult: if this case does get decided in favor of the DMCA, woe be unto anyone who points out that Security by Obscurity(tm) is not necessarily the bee's knees. The media thought police would love to make the leap from someone's supposition of a crack to possession of the means to do so....
DMCA logic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DMCA logic (Score:5, Informative)
Back when the Sony-Betamax case was pending Supreme Court review, people asked how it could be that VCR manufacturers could be liable for contributory infringement of copyright simply by providing a tool that some people misused when gun manufacturers were immune from suit by murder victims. There were political cartoons to this effect.
Then the Supreme Court thanfully (it was a close one though, 5-4, I believe, and according to some historians the dissent was originally the majority) gave VCRs a fair use out.
Basically, the Mickey Mouse lobby is invincible. Why should they be deterred by a little logic?
Before drifting in the gun debate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously you can get arrested as a conspirator, accessory, or accomplice to a crime. But liability goes further, it depends on your knowledge and exercise of due care.
You can get in trouble for supplying a gun to someone knowing they intend to use it for a crime; you can be liable for joyriders crashing your car after you left the keys in the ignition; there is even liability for serving one drink too many to someone before they go driving ("dram shop laws"). Said liability may be civil or criminal depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances.
Before anyone says these sorts of liability are unfair in some abstract sense of causality, I'll add that the rules were developed in an effort to reduce the overall misery by allocating responsibility efficiently and reducing opportunities for mischief. So it has less to do with condemning anyone than with dry economics. Of course the details are open to debate.
As for shoes, well, they've been trying to get stiletto heels over 3" banned outright for years. (I'm kidding -- but I wonder if you can still take them on an airplane?)
I *hope* this is what you were asking about!
Re:DMCA logic (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone uses a gun to commit a crime, there is a fair probability they will be caught. The more effective a society is at catching illegal uses of guns after the fact, the fewer restrictions it needs to impose on guns before the fact. Though it should be mentioned that even if we have perfect after-the-fact enforcement, some restrictions on guns should remain thanks to the irreversibility of murder.
The difficulty of tracking down acts of copyright infringement, combined with the suddenly huge frequency of such acts thanks to the popularization of the Internet, creates a problem. While any individual act of copyright infringement is practically harmless, when they occur in the millions they can unfairly hurt producers of content.
There are two categories of approaches to deal with this, both of which should be employed to some degree.
One is to ask everyone to "think outside the box" and adapt their business models to the new reality of effectively zero cost of data duplication. In the long run, this should be done in as many contexts as possible. However, the transition is not always easy, if possible at all. In the cases where it is difficult or not possible, it needs to be decided whether the old class of business model should still be kept around for the time being. While some zealots would deny it, the truth of the matter is that sometimes the answer to this last question is "yes".
That's where the second type of approach comes in to play. Put restrictions on the tools that change what would be tens or hundreds of copyright infringements into millions of them, in a manner that's otherwise minimally disruptive. This is not a simple thing to do. The DMCA was the first attempt, and frankly I don't think it was that bad of an attempt, but clearly it could be improved. We need to find ways to let it do its job while constantly brainstorming ideas to better achieve "minimal disruption", and help society evolve to the point where few business models still need to be protected. We need to ensure that this law, in the long run, "withers away", rather than let it be like most real life Communist regimes which do not speak highly of Marx's ability to predict history.
What we shouldn't do is retreat into a hole and ignore the problem entirely.
Re:DMCA logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DMCA logic (Score:3, Insightful)
"I'm No Hacker" ?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Pffffft !
Re:"I'm No Hacker" ?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like there's an even bigger issue (Score:4, Interesting)
The question I have is this: what's the next frontier? What is the next law which proves to be obsolete in our world? And what will each of us do to bring about the change? This last bit is important because, as the laws need to grow, someone will have to help them along. Those people who help the change, will likely be prosecuted because the law is there to protect someone's interests. Those interests come with a lot of money. So the law is on the old money side. The code, it seems to me, is on the new money side. I don't believe that code will lead to free (beer). There will be free stuff, but there will also be money. My guess is that it won't be the money of the blue chips unless law beats code.
I'm rambling now. Time to shut up.
Legitimate use? (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be interesting to hear what the "legitimate uses" sited by these people are.
Control the access, control the ... (Score:5, Insightful)
While the seller doesnt have to guarantee that his books can be read by the blind, the seller cant keep the blind from reading the book, ie using the software to 'open' the book and let him read it.
I would like to hear a valid argument against this statement?
thanks for reading.
Re:Control the access, control the ... (Score:3, Informative)
The Adobe eBook reader software includes text-to-speech already. Any blind person can use the eBook Reader to read-- or, more accurately, listen to-- any book in the eBook format.
So this is most decidedly not about a blind person's ability to read, or have read to them, anything.
"Didn't care that he violated US law" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Didn't care that he violated US law" (Score:5, Funny)
Not the issue (Score:4, Informative)
IN CAPITALIST AMERICA (Score:5, Funny)
Violate US Law (Score:5, Insightful)
He violated a US law on Russian soil.
That is the key point people SHOULD be upset about.
You can't argue that you shouldn't have to follow a countries laws while you are in that country. The origional issue was that a Russian citizen in Russia, working for a Russian company, shouldn't have to worry about US law.
Re:Violate US Law (Score:4, Funny)
Unless you make the mistake of stepping onto US soil. Then you get your ass tossed into jail for several months until you agree to come back and testify against yourself.
How many items in the US bill of rights did that cover? Good thing he wasn't a citizen.
Re:Violate US Law (Score:5, Funny)
fact: in some countries, adultury is punished by castration...
wonder what the case would be if another country did that to a visiting US diplomat?
do as we say, not as we do.
Re:Violate US Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, you see, but diplomats can have diplomatic immunity for JUST that reason. Even if they commit their crimes while on US soil. They can only be tried in their country of origin. Reminds me of a diplomat who hit and killed a little girl while DWI a few years ago. They didn't do anything to him. He couldn't be arrested...
Re:Violate US Law (Score:3, Interesting)
copying books (Score:5, Insightful)
Does Adobe give users the ability to print out copies of their e-books? If so, then they need to prosecute every manufacture of OCR software that exists.
In fact, they need to prosecute every manufacture of OCR software anyway because it could be used to read the characters directly off of a screenshot of an open e-book.
They also need to bring lawsuits against anyone with data entry skills because theoretically someone could read text from a screen and input it into a word processor.
Wait, that means word processors are a circumvention device for e-book protection, but that's ok: everyone uses Microsoft Word anyway and Microsoft has more lawyers then Adobe.
The list goes on, but the point is that data will be copied one way or another when people want to copy the data.
Pick your favorite fix to the copyright system we have today, but it had better deal with two parts of reality:\
Encryption can and will be decrypted.
Content must be cheap or people will copy it.
Re:copying books (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent effective methods of protection. Once the work has been printed, it is not protected by any device or technology. So scanning those printed pages and OCR'ing them is not illegal under the DMCA. (Of course, you may or may not be violating the copyright itself once you've scanned it, depending on what you do with it.)
I'll say the same thing to you that I've said many times before: before making these kinds of wild-ass statements, please read the DMCA. It's Title 17, chapter 12, of the U.S. Code, and it's available on lots of web sites, including copyright.gov.
Re:copying books (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you demonize everyone who disagrees with you, or just everyone who disagrees with you on this issue?
You've just said that the solution for blind people is not to buy EBooks. You have no right to accuse anyone else of lacking a conscience.
You've just given Adobe the sole authority for "transferring certain material from reader to reader". Since every ebook in existence should eventually be public domain, and the length of current copyright terms vastly exceeds the halflife of electronic gadgets, this is unacceptable.
Even in the meantime, I can think of a dozen legitimate reasons for wanting unchained access to material I have purchased (and so there are probably a hundred more I haven't thought of). Getting that access may break the DMCA but does not break copyright law, and it is not immoral of me to want it.
Elcomsoft published code whose primary use is to to break encryption. Subverting copy prevention is a secondary use.
Hacker ... just what is that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, he might just have lied, when he said "no"; I would certainly label him as a hacker, using definition 1, and he might also be a golf hacker for all we know.
Connotation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Connotation (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like "are you okay?" only has one correct answer: "compared to what?".
Doing this will result in several things:
- You get the prosecutor out of his rythm, as he now has to answer one of your questions
- It leaves a nice impression on the jury and judge, as you get a chance to inform them, that the word has several uses, and therefor needs to be clarified
- You might even get to do this on several occasions, when he asks, as under different circumstances, describing yourself as a hacker would be faster and easier than describing yourself as being a very competent computer user, programmer and developer. Again, this will get the prosecutor on his heels, as he then needs to either ask you what you mean by hacker this time or simply accept that hacker isn't nescesarily bad.
All in all it's a good thing to clarify what people mean, when what they say is ambiguous - which "are you a hacker" certainly is.From the CNET article (Score:5, Interesting)
Now this is an interesting twist. I didn't know anything about ElcomSoft itself. This is like blaming the guys who make the tools used to extract keys from locked cars. Everyone curses the wind wishing they're around when you get locked out.
Who here has not scrambled for a NT Admin password recovery disk, or a ZIP password cracker, or swapped NVRAM chips between Suns?
They don't hide behind pretenses... they expose the poor security and help you when you are hindered by said annoyances! I believe there is insufficient evidence to make Sklyarov appear malicious, and he had little to gain personally. He exposed the information that would only be profitable within the confines of the company and his product to the public. Moreover, he warned potential publishers that the protected PDFs weren't safe. Therefore, the only person that loses out is the lazy programmers at Adobe. And he claims to be ignorant of the legal ramifications. AND WHY SHOULD HE, HE'S A FRIGGIN RUSSIAN CITIZEN (Spare me the IN SOVIET RUSSIA... replies).
I hope to GOD that the DMCA doesn't get used to uphold lazy habits.
Re:From the CNET article (Score:4, Funny)
Aw man, just when I was thinking I was l337 you had to throw the NVRAM one in there.
Welcome! (Score:4, Funny)
~ New AOL 9.0 with DMCA support now available! It's the internet, only better! ~
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Score:5, Funny)
Still not so sure about the long arm of the law.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Suppose that the Kingdom of Tuva passes a law making it a crime for any politician to accept a campaign donation from any corporation or individual who receives any benefit from a vote cast by that politician. Can the Kingdom of Tuva then try the entire US Congress? Is this any different than the US trying Dmitry?
Skylarov a communist. and we know what that means (Score:3, Funny)
Amazing that this kind of thing would fly (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it now.
"I.... LikeDOING... Illegal..... programing It... is so much fun... to see... Adobe e-books... Pirated.
Arrrrr, Arrrr.... My former employer, Elcomsoft... is a bunch of... Pirates
Arrrrrr. Arrrrrr"
"So ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Dmitri Sklyarov himself said so. Do the right thing. Convict Elcomsoft. Or it won't be safe to travel the digital ocean."
-The judge then goes home to protect his booty from the scurvy bilge rats.
Re:Amazing that this kind of thing would fly (Score:4, Funny)
Try this:
Johnny Cochrane: Ladies and Gentlemen, (Pulls down picture of a pirate, eye patch, parrot, the works) this is Dimitry. Dimitry is a hacker from the country Russia, but Dimitry is being prosecuted in the country America. Now think about it. That does not make sense.
Johnny Cochrane: Why would a hacker, an eight-foot-tall hacker, be in American court with a bunch of two-foot-tall laywers. That does not make sense.
-
Language barrier? (Score:4, Insightful)
I honestly hope that the lawyers on both sides are doing what they can to NOT ask ambiguous questions. I hope that Dimitry clearly understands the questions they're asking him.
Lawyers suck. I wouldn't put it past any lawyer to try to wiggle in an oddly phrased question to try to squeeze out the answer they're looking for.
if this is how it works now... (Score:5, Funny)
"That's true," Sklyarov said.
So, let's get the whole
Pecking order (Score:5, Interesting)
That one's for you, Jon. And so's the next one. And the one after that. And as many as it takes until Adobe fully appreciates the delicacy of vendor-customer relationships, and acknowledges who's really in charge.
Re:Pecking order (Score:5, Insightful)
They got what they wanted, and decided to sit back and let the feds be the bad guys.
I personally make a point of showing everyone I encounter who's interested in making PDFs the beauty of Ghostscript and Ghostview. Every sale I can cost Adobe makes me feel that much warmer inside.
I look forward to the day when the DMCA wielding jackbooted thugs cease to be relevant, and their stock becomes worthless.
Corporate droid (Score:4, Insightful)
You should keep your personal battles out of the workplace. You wouldn't like it if your employer involved itself in your personal life.
It's called a company having ethics.
At my company before last the management landed a large tobacco account. They had to cancel the contract because the team refused to work on the account on ethical grounds. It happens. Some of us care. We don't submit to the cowardly excuse "if we don't do it someone else will".
Final point. It's not our "personal life", this guy is a fellow software engineer and the outcome will affect what we can and can't do professionally.
Phillip.
Transcript? (Score:3)
It's a good thing the ancient Greeks and Egyptians (Score:5, Insightful)
Our creative output is going to be slowly locked away in copyright protected files never to be seen again... except to the person who originally bought the rights to view it. But they (we) will be long since dead... and the content, which will be as helpful to them in understanding their history as hiroglyphics are to us, will be lost.
Bottom line... the DMCA, and everything it stands for, sucks. It is the epitomy of government "of the people, for the people, and by the people" gone terribly wrong.
-S
What is going on here? (Score:5, Funny)
Go all the way down to the bottom of the page and click on the U.S. Attorney's office link....
Is it porn for you too? Did they get hacked?
Not cracked. Re:What is going on here? (Score:4, Informative)
"A copy of this press release and key court documents filed in the case may also be found on the U.S. Attorney's Office's website at www.usaondca.com."
Adboe did not misquote the URL. The domain appears to have changed hands as of Nov 25, 2002.
To foreign programmers: don't step foot in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Sklyarov should not have had a responsibility to know or obey the laws of the United States, as a Russian doing work in Russia. What his employer does with the product he makes is none of his concern.
Putting the fact that I don't agree with the DMCA (I believe it is Unconstitutional) aside, the company sold the product in the USA, and should be the one held responsible.
Holding Sklyarov accountable is just plain wrong. US citizens wonder why foreigners hate our guts. One of the reasons is that our government feels that its laws should forced upon everyone worldwide.
If you are a foreign programmer who deals with security issues, I'd be cautious about stepping foot in the US, at least while Bush and his administration hold power. As you can see, our government is out of control right now, and it'll take a lot of US citizens to wake up to that fact before things can really change.
Re:To foreign programmers: don't step foot in the (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if he did it, it should depend on the terms on which he was granted entrance in the US. We European can shortcut the visa procedure by signing a visa waiver, that allows US administration and justice to handle us as they see fit. For instance, if a citizen of the Netherlands is found in possess of marjuana, it can be arrested in the US even though this is legal in the Netherlands.
If Sklyarov signed something like that and then violated the american law (even not knowing it), bad luck to him. But if he came in the US with a real visa, I believe that the only legal act for the US authorities was expulsion. Anything else, in a country less powerful than US, would have raised one hell of an international case.
Gah. Just another sad story... (Score:3, Insightful)
*smirk* I hate the DOJ. I can't wait until we (the generation/group of people that has two braincells to rub together) get into seniority. I'm sure that once people get the message that this is fucking STUPID (and people with a bit more integrity [if that ever happens]), these kinds of actions and these kinds of laws will be outlawed.
Or maybe I'm just being idealistic. I just can't apathy get the best of me, 'cause I know if it's just that easy for Skylarov to say something and go to jail, then I might be next for something stupid. Oh well.
CHECK OUT THE LINK ADOBE POSTED! (Score:5, Funny)
-Go to Adobe's press release. [adobe.com]
-Scroll down to the last question.
-Click on the US Attorney's office link.
Something tells me that Sophy's going to be getting a lot of revenge real soon... LMAO!
Re:Hacker...prosecution says so (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to know more about the jury. Are there any programmers in there? Because if it's a bunch of old folks (yes, I'm stereotyping) who don't understand the industry, they could very well fall for this ploy. Sometimes it doesnt matter what the law actually is, it only matters what the jury's final answer is.
I think it is a very ignorant portrayal of a very intelligent minded, important industry.
Unfortunatly, television and movies have been portraying anyone who knows anything about computers as a hacker since the movie 'War Games'. Dark room, dark clothes, spiked hair, electronic B&E. The fact the he was at a hacker convention when he got arrested only gives the prosecution more spin material. If this jury doesn't have a grasp on the hype, the prosecution may very well be able to pull this off.
Re:Hacker...Cracker...it's all the same. (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly, if you're going to play grammar wars, check your sources:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infer [reference.com]
infer (n-fûr)
v. inferred, inferring, infers
v. tr.
- To conclude from evidence or premises.
- To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
- To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy).
- To hint; imply.
Third, the idea of whether or not the connotations of "hacker" and "cracker" are known to the public is somewhat central to my statement - hence the "hint" that I implied.Finally, I have no more time for silly games. This will be my final response along this thread.
-JT
Re:Hacker...Cracker...it's all the same. (Score:3, Insightful)